Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Ok, so just been to see my friend, she still has her head firmly in the sand and had a pile of unopened post, thankfully nothing serious apart from this case!    In answer to your question it says N24 General Directions Order at the bottom of the page, then on page 2 where the line says "As a result of an order made on the 1 May 2024, this claim has been transferred to the county court at ##### (friends local court) " this is N271 Notice of transfer of proceedings.  Within the stack of letters I found 2 from Kearns Solicitors,    02-12-2022 Document pack with covering letter stating under the s78 CCA please see enclosed  1) A copy of the executed Credit Agreement, 2)  A copy of the terms & conditions 3) A copy of the varied terms & conditions applicable at termination / assignment, and  4) A statement regarding the conduct of your account as requested by s78(1)(a) to (c)  (Would you like me to describe the documents attached?)   18-02-2023 Generic letter asking for her to contact them to discuss settlement or they will take to court for further legal action. 
    • well you made the cardinal sin by phoning these scammers at least once so their persistence could go on. however you are new so there you go. you never ever ever phone any of these likes of scammers on these fake schemes that seem plausible.  just like a DCA chasing any old debt .. they are NOT BAILIFFS and have  ZERO legal powers to actually do anything. dx  
    • Okay understood now just based on personal experience how long does this go on for 
    • civil recovery schemes run by the likes of RLP DWF etc etc are a scam. totally IGNORE EVERYTHING. no if's or but's dx  
    • I’m 17 years old and Received 2 letters from dwf with my name spelt wrong and they are asking for for £230.40. I rang dwf civil recovery the first time upon taking advice from citizens advice to explain to delay to deadline as I was in the process of receiving advice which wasn’t much help. When that deadline was done I then called again to delay the deadline as I’m struggling financially and it’s lot of money they are asking for and I tried to dispute the cost to which they said okay we will delay it another 7 days for you to dispute the cost but I asked them how do I dispute this to you or Sainsbury’s and they said “we can’t advise you on this matter” I’ve read a lot of threads saying to ignore them but I was unsure now as I’ve made contact and have tried to dispute the payment and pay it which might mean I have admitted. Would they just persist harder and take me to court eventually or file for a ccj.   I would like to ignore them still but I would like to send a strong email so they know I’m clued up and then ignore them. I also want to pay the reasonable amount and get this matter solved. any advice on the law or similar situations are helpful when I called them I asked for an itemised bill. £101 stolen goods  ( supposedly caught me because they watched me on cctv over the duration of the week) also why did they not stop me in the first day. £20.40 recovered goods £150 security costs     Thank you 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Hunting debate - Vote now!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5972 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Barracad, you are right it was not said that it was profit making but a commercial site.

 

I must need new spectacles as I've looked at the thread several times now and the first mention of any profit making/commercial site etc was made by Peed 'Orf.

 

Can somebody please quote whatever it is that seemed to have caused offence? I can find no suggestions of any kind.

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

nothing libellous in my post was there baz?

 

You probably know more than me - what you posted could be true, but I doubt it very much. Without any evidence to back it up, I'm afraid your post won't be allowed.

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest SummerSausage

I wasn't criticising Legal seagulls at all, I was simply pointing out that Peedorf is factually incorrect when he/she says that it is not a profit making entity, which it manifestly is.

 

Meldrew- when you talk about ambulance chasers charging 15% - 25%, how is that different to the way your 'approved' law firms will be operating? Presumably they'll be working on a no-win-no-fee basis? I believe that the average percentage a law firm takes in a no-win-no-fee action is around 30%, and of course if you lose, you will still be liable for the bank's costs!

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is fair comment , is there any chance of removing sausage legs` post until any evidence has been found to back up their statement

 

In the interests of fairness and all that

 

I am not familiar with the Legal seagulls site but I imagine the details about solicitors referrals and £9 membership fees are detailed on that site, or else somebody would have corrected it. Therefore the "evidence" is actually on the LB site itself.

 

The comments which you posted will probably not be found on the LB site as even if it were true I doubt they would be advertising the fact.

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did barracad with regards to 9 quid membership. Please see site questions and suggestions and one of the closed threads.

With regards to solicitors referrals it states fully insured solicitor

I came I saw I helped. I could do no more.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest SummerSausage

I thought the entire Bear Garden forum was meant to be 'off topic', or am I missing something?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No i meant this bit is further off the hunting debate than the thread beginning, does that make sense?

We can carry on i suppose?

I came I saw I helped. I could do no more.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did barracad with regards to 9 quid membership. Please see site questions and suggestions and one of the closed threads.

 

Is that the post where you said

 

the VIP area... has a cost of £9 a year

 

sounds to me like you are saying there is a £9 charge for certain areas, not disputing it!

 

So is there or isn't there? If there is, then there is nothing libellous in SummerSausage's post. If there is no charge, then clearly SummerSausage is mistaken.

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

am I missing something?

 

I think I'm the one who's missing something... I have no idea how or why we got into this rather odd debate.

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Barracad as you are quoting me, can I ask if you believe Penalty Charges is a commercial site which DOES have the same facilities for a cost?

 

I want to clarify that aspect because it was also made clear in the post that membership to the main forums and information is specifically FREE. I know this site does not have a VIP area nor does MSE.

I came I saw I helped. I could do no more.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys. First post on here.

 

Just a thought, I don't know whats going on between these two sites, but I've looked at them both and from what I can see there are differences, but the main aim of BOTH (and indeed) all sites, is to take back what is lawfully ours. Am I not right?

 

Why is there all this mudslinging and animosity from the Consumer Action Group towards Legal seagulls? Why do you not attack Penalty Charges and Money Saving expert as well, amongst others?

 

I feel that all this energy is being wasted on attacking another site, when it could be used challenging the banks and other unlawful practices. Do you not agree?

 

So what if Legal seagulls has a commercial arm to it? From what I can see (yes I am a member, along with being a member to CAG, PC and MSE) there is no charge for using the forum, unless you want access to the VIP forum, the same as Penalty Charges. What is wrong with offering a service where people can pay a QUALIFIED person to reclaim their bank charges back? If you didn't want to do it yourself, surely that would be better than using one of these firms out there, who I am sure employ unqualified laypersons to handle claims, do you not agree?

 

They are also offering, from what I can make out, conveyancing and wills, amongst other legal services. Again, what is wrong with a website offering these? Would the CAG etc do these for free? I think not?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest SummerSausage
I think I'm the one who's missing something... I have no idea how or why we got into this rather odd debate.
Hunting --> seagulls --> Legal seagulls --> Ambulance Chasers...seems to have been the general route.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Barracad as you are quoting me, can I ask if you believe Penalty Charges is a commercial site which DOES have the same facilities for a cost?

 

I have no idea. I know about as much as PC site as I do about LB. As far as I know PC display something next to your avatar after you've donated, if that's what you mean. They could well have a private/VIP area which you have to pay for but if they do that's the first I've heard of it. I understand they have some kind of auction site, so I would say yes they are a commercial site. That doesn't necessarily mean they make a profit.

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest SummerSausage
Hi guys. First post on here.

 

Just a thought, I don't know whats going on between these two sites, but I've looked at them both and from what I can see there are differences, but the main aim of BOTH (and indeed) all sites, is to take back what is lawfully ours. Am I not right?

 

Why is there all this mudslinging and animosity from the Consumer Action Group towards Legal seagulls? Why do you not attack Penalty Charges and Money Saving expert as well, amongst others?

 

I feel that all this energy is being wasted on attacking another site, when it could be used challenging the banks and other unlawful practices. Do you not agree?

 

So what if Legal seagulls has a commercial arm to it? From what I can see (yes I am a member, along with being a member to CAG, PC and MSE) there is no charge for using the forum, unless you want access to the VIP forum, the same as Penalty Charges. What is wrong with offering a service where people can pay a QUALIFIED person to reclaim their bank charges back? If you didn't want to do it yourself, surely that would be better than using one of these firms out there, who I am sure employ unqualified laypersons to handle claims, do you not agree?

 

They are also offering, from what I can make out, conveyancing and wills, amongst other legal services. Again, what is wrong with a website offering these? Would the CAG etc do these for free? I think not?

I think the main difference is that CAG, PC and MSE are all heavily involved in actual campaigning. They all have large numbers of users and expensive servers to run. I believe that both PC and CAG were forced into offering various paid for things in order to keep things running. LB on the other hand seems to have been set up very quickly, using material copied from other sites (yes I know, not all of it) with the specific intention of making money for its owners and their affiliated lawyers.
Link to post
Share on other sites

summer that post actually states the source as well, consumeractiongroup, so acknowledgement is there. Where is the copied stuff unacknowledged?

 

 

Also a breach of forum rules as the site is classed as a commercial site as an aside

I came I saw I helped. I could do no more.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes with reference to it being originally posted on cag , I did mean however proof of your earlier statement . By the way thanks for the link much appreciated as there will no doubt be plenty watching this thread;)

 

 

And Hi Yoda , guess what I`m eating at the mo , clue: it says Bassetts on it thanks its luuurrrvly

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest SummerSausage
summer that post actually states the source as well, consumeractiongroup, so acknowledgement is there. Where is the copied stuff unacknowledged?

 

 

Also a breach of forum rules as the site is classed as a commercial site as an aside

I don't think I was suggesting anything other than that the material has been copied, as opposed to linked directly to CAG. The fact that its origin is acknowledged doesn't alter the fact that it is a copy.

 

I don't understand your second paragraph.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The legal seagulls site has been classed as commercial and is therefore in breach of the site rules to post a link. Others who did post a link have had their posts edited as *commercial link removed*

It has been copied with a clear reference. Anyone with a search engine can type consumeractiongroup and end up here.

I came I saw I helped. I could do no more.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...